Because I'm a show off...
Same sort of deal as the essay I'm doing now, except we needed to analyse a shot, not a scene.
Many have attempted to adapt Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde’ for the screen. Few have reached such critical success as Rouben Mamoulian’s 1932 adaptation. Often exceptionally dark at times, Mamoulian’s version attempts to capture the sometimes sinister essence of Hyde’s animalistic nature. Perhaps one of the best examples of this occurs after Hyde has killed Ivy. As he flees from police, Mamoulian cuts to a static long shot of Mr Hyde entering the frame, then running away from his pursuers while his shadow grows, overtaking the wall behind him. Initially, this shot may be seen as merely one within a ‘chase’ sequence. However, further analysis suggests this shot reveals more about the animalistic behavior of Hyde, and perhaps, captures much of the essence of the entire film itself.
This particular shot is striking because it differs from those preceding and following it, particularly due to its unusual darkness and unexpected length. The shots before it are dictated by speed, and are relatively bright for a sequence set during night. In this ‘chase’ sequence, as soon as Hyde leaves a shot, Mamoulian cuts to the next, extending the sequence further and thus implying a sense of urgency and excitement by the pursuit. Alternatively, the cuts are dictated by Hyde’s actions. For example, Hyde jumping out of a tree over a fence: a quick close up cuts to a long shot of Hyde making the leap. This begs an investigation as to why Mamoulian chooses to differentiate this shot from those around it. This particular shot of Hyde’s shadow differs from the others for as soon as Hyde leaves the frame, Mamoulian deliberately keeps the camera static – thus implying an honesty of the shot. Mamoulian may imply this is no trick of the mind, nor is it a fantasy of Hyde’s in some transformation potion-induced hallucination. The camera previously cut when Hyde left the frame – now the camera cuts when Hyde’s shadow leaves the frame – perhaps Mamoulian indicates the shadow is an extension of Hyde himself. The construction of the shot is quite featureless. On a physical mise-en-scene level, the set consists of a house with a staircase. There are no props. Mr Hyde’s costume consists of his makeup and suit with a cape. The shadow reveals Hyde’s long cape billowing past him as he runs – a cape, often a symbol of a character with evil or sinister intentions – perhaps this is a clue to Hyde’s villinaous nature. (Interestingly, Jekyll also dons a cape – perhaps evidencing there is no separation between the two entities of Jekyll and Hyde). The shot is not one of Hyde merely running away from police, as the viewer has seen a number of these in the shots preceding. The shot is quite abnormally dark in nature. It reminds the viewer of a noir style of lighting, even though the film precedes the pioneering of the genre by a decade. Perhaps this alludes to the darker spirit of the shot and Hyde’s representation of animalistic, and perhaps barbaric, actions and intentions. Additionally, the soundtrack, though not part of Mamoulian’s mise-en-scene, involves the shouts and cries of Hyde’s followers. This reminds the viewer of the pursuit in question, and we are reminded that Hyde has actually done evil against another human being. Indeed, this may be an argument of Mamoulian’s. He may be saying that no matter what Jekyll’s theory of two souls in one body, one cannot allow this total manifestation of one part affect others and do damage towards them. Furthermore, Hyde’s heavy, grunted and animal like breathing is also heard. It is the louder of the two dominant sound tracks in the shot. Again, this is possible evidence of a capturing of Hyde’s raw, perhaps fundamental animal instincts that his character represents.
It is entirely conceivable, then, that the shot is very much a testament to Mr Hyde’s animalistic nature, and the impacts this transformation has on others and the world around him: he has killed someone. Perhaps Hyde’s shadow overtaking the frame is a demonstration of the fact that Jekyll’s ‘shadow’, the side of his soul connected with animalistic instinct, has now fully taken over himself, if only temporarily, as it physically takes over the frame. Mamoulian does not cut until Hyde’s shadow has passed over and across the building behind him – Jekyll’s shadow is an extension of his person. Indeed, the fact that Hyde’s shadow becomes bigger than his physical self may connote he is not his own – his very existence has dominated not only himself, but the very world around him. Hyde’s actions, when he is in a drunken state of barberry, have caused Ivy to die, (indeed, he killed her), his shadow grows upon the wall. Hyde appears to run out of the frame from the direction from which he came – this may imply a backwards step, he is not moving forward, he is always trapped in one direction. Perhaps Mamoulian evidences here Hyde is a complete entity apart from Jekyll – the two are totally separated.
To appreciate the significance of the shot, one must consider Mamoulian’s other possibilities for it. Why did he not simply cut to the next shot of the police chasing Hyde, missing out his shadow all together? To make the camera tilted, such as those angles so liberally used in Carol Reed’s ‘The Third Man’, would imply something is off centre – something is not right. Morality may be twisted, or perhaps the character’s perception may be unbalanced. However, Mamoulian’s static shot implies a certain honesty. David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson comment on this in ‘Film Art: An Introduction’. They write ‘A static composition…may keep pulling our attention back to a single element’[1]. Indeed, perhaps Mamoulian intends for us to focus on Hyde’s shadow, the single element in the frame. This shadow is the key to understanding this particular shot. Additionally, Hyde is framed coming from the left of the camera – this implies disjointedness, and uneasiness, something being off centre. Furthermore, if Mamoulian had filmed Hyde himself becoming increasingly larger, not his shadow, and taking over the frame, the impact of the shot would differ significantly. Additionally, the choice of soundtrack for the shot is interesting. If Mamoulian were to insert music here, (as he did so creatively using a mixture of elements in other scenes), it would change the personality of the shot. Replacing Hyde’s animalistic grunts with an orchestra, perhaps playing a fast-paced tune would place more of an emphasis on the chase, not what Hyde has become. That is, a murderer. By leaving the soundtrack without any orchestral and musical background, an emphasis is placed on the reality Mamoulian is trying to create. A reality that has rules and consequences. Additionally, the shot is large, in the sense that it encompasses a large amount of space. This is not a close up – the audience is not focusing on Hyde’s facial expressions, thus gaining insight into his thoughts or feelings. Mamoulian pulls back to reveal the entire scope of the scene. Perhaps the viewer is meant to see Hyde as a whole. Indeed, perhaps Mamoulian wants the audience to feel that there is actually no depth within Hyde’s character.
This examination is, of course, only one interpretation. Mamoulian may simply have wanted this shot to be pleasing to the eye, or perhaps visually stimulating on merely a physical level, thus making the reader entranced by the excitement of a pursuit. If this is assumed, however, one must ask why the shot differs so greatly from those preceding and following it. This particular shot is cut to the next one not on a dictated basis of rhythm and speed. It is a lengthy shot, considering the sequence in which it appears, and its lighting is darker than other shots in the sequence.
Based on this analysis, one can assume Mamoulian deliberately staged this shot for the audience to grasp the nature of something significant within its frame. There is much debate as to whether there is really a ‘villain’ in this film – and whether Mr Hyde’s character is actually a manifestation of any possible ‘evil’ there may be in Jekyll. However, due to the extremely dark nature of this shot, and its unusual structure, perhaps Mamoulian gives us a key to this debate – that, indeed, Hyde may be the real villain of the film, or at least, the essence of villainy.
Patrick Stafford
S3138006
I'm fairly proud of it. I'll try and top it with my next one, however.
Have a good day, folks.
posted by CelestialScribe | 2:42 PM
1 Comments:
Yes, I know it's not the best essay ever written, and I repeat myself sometimes. But I'm fairly happy with it :)
Post a Comment
<< Home